Here is an article on the Gene Theory.
I wonder which it is? Genes or Hormones?
Are they going to start pricking fingers at job interviews, like in Gattica?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145754,00.html
In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146
families with two or more gay brothers.
The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the
gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common
genetic patterns were shared by 60 percent of the gay men in the study. This
is slightly more than the 50 percent expected by chance alone.
The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual
orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or
father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual
orientation if they were inherited from the mother.
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145754,00.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> genetic patterns were shared by 60 percent of the gay men in the study. This
> is slightly more than the 50 percent expected by chance alone.
These are very thin correlations and they operate in a limited number of
cases. Keep in mind that the incidence of homosexuality is around 1-3%
of the male population and 1-2% of the female population. Even genetic
components that double the risk still make it far less than likely.
The hormone previously mentioned in relation to male homosexuality is
DHEA, which is a hormone that also correlates to longevity and its part
of the androgen synthesis pathway.
In women, PCOS increases the risk for lesbianism - probably through the
excessive levels of androgens. I don't think androgens are a simple set
of straight-forward hormones. Androgens also make heterosexual women
more sexual in general.
Behavior of any kind is very difficult to sift through. It's determined
by education/socialization/culture, genetic inheritance and environment.
In America, the first element is of limited impact in homosexual
behavior. This would not be true in, say, ancient Rome. Furthermore,
the biggest component may well be in the womb where genes interact with
chemicals from a mother's diet and other factors, permanently switching
these genes on or off.
Which is which has great implications for 5AR inhibition. Does
inhibiting 5AR make you more "heterosexual?" Probably not. It's likely
that once these genes get flipped on/off, they affect brain development
in a permanent way. The enhanced levels of DHT continues to have
ongoing effects on characteristics like body hair. Since the hair
follicle is self-renewing, you can somewhat alter its growth by cutting
back on those androgens. The brain, however, is the brain. Once those
connections link up, small molecules aren't going to change much. I
suppose for a few individuals in the border region of the spectrum, you
might be able to do something, but probably not for the vast majority of
people. For instance, I've heard that athletic women shooting up on
androgens can occassionally find themselves staring at other women's
breasts. It's a complicated business.
> > Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Dec;1032:237-44.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> > muscular, heterosexual men with very little body hair, or beard. One
> > study also showed them scoring around dull normal IQs.
If I recall, a cluster of 5AR2 deficient men popped up in the Dominican
Republic. I'd be cautious about making statements about IQs unless I
knew who was being compared to whom. Dull normal might be average for
other Dominicans in a similar sample. I'd need to see all the papers
involved and see where they pulled their samples from and how.
> > A greater
> > prevalence of liberal body hair growth in men with higher IQs and/or
> > educational levels was also observed in several samples.
I can offer another interpretation. Wealth leads to better nutrition
and greater body and brain size - usually partly through glucose/insulin
upregulation. A diet rich in calories and carbs increases these
cellular growth signals and, through some yet unknown means, cranks up
androgen output - hence the higher body hair levels. A better study
would control for wealth, diet and IQ.
The
> > exceptions to this statistical trend are too unsettling, however.
What exceptions are these?
> > Nevertheless, the results of a number of published studies, including
> > one showing higher DHT-to-T ratio in homosexual men, done with
> > different objectives over a span of 80 years, together strongly
> > support these findings. Furthermore, in an animal model,
> > "cognitive-enhancing effects" of "5alpha-reduced androgen " were
> > recently demonstrated.
What study is this?
The Fox article is misleading in how it's written. It's titled,
"Genes Linked With Male Sexual Orientation Found." Technically, the
study their reporting on is not a gene linkage study, which is the most
convincing genetics finding there is, e.g., linking a particular
phenotype with a gene locus or loci. Instead this is a gene
*association* study. And might I say, 60 percent vs. the 50 percent
you'd expect by chance is not very convincing.
I always liked the Kinsey view on sexual orientation. Some people are
completely straight, or completely gay (e.g., the UO). Most people fall
somewhere in between. Genes probably tell only a very small part of the
story why some men like to screw men, or women with women, etc.
> Here is an article on the Gene Theory.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual
> orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or
> father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual
> orientation if they were inherited from the mother.
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
> >
> > PMID: 15677419
chatw@my-deja.com - 03 Feb 2005 04:38 GMT
Couldn't DHT/T counts also be influenced by sexual habits, self
suppression, continuous mental or physical stimulation, or mastrubation
frequency?
> completely straight, or completely gay (e.g., the UO). Most people fall
> somewhere in between. Genes probably tell only a very small part of the
> story why some men like to screw men, or women with women, etc.
>From what I gather, the consensus points to neither nature nor nurture,
but to Dear Old Mom's hormonal flucuations or exposure during
gestation. It makes you wonder about androgen exposure in intercourse
during critical pregnacy stages. (I've even read wild speculation
blaming the advent of "estrogenic" sun lotions behind the "rise" in
boomer gender confusion! Jeeze, I'll never look at the little
Coppertone ad girl & pup quite the same way again!!!).
If the gestation/hormone model is confirmed, then homosexuality could
possibly be "prevented," or "treated" in utero. Or perhaps even
deliberately "designed," (for those vangarde, PC couples convinced that
there are already too many fashion-uncoordinated, lawnmower repairmen
in the family).